Dismissed¶27

Mahesh Chandra Mishra v. M.D. Orissa State Financial Corporation, Cuttack

Orissa HC17 Mar 2025WP(C)/24377/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal for non-prosecution; writ petition; mandamus; quashing of registration and mutation of land; reinstatement of land; Odisha State Financial Corporation; Managing Director; senior citizen petitioner; Mahesh Chandra Mishra; petitioner absent on consecutive hearing dates (19.02.2025 and 17.03.2025); High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; W.P.(C) 24377 of 2024; order dated 17.03.2025; bench of K.R. Mohapatra and S.K. Mishra; no merits decided; no statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

As the Petitioner was absent on 19.02.2025 and again on 17.03.2025, the Court concluded that the Petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the case and accordingly dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution. ¶26

Mahesh Chandra Mishra Vs M.D. Orissa State Financial Corporation, Cuttack — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) NO. 24377 OF 2024

¶3

Mahesh Chandra Mishra

…. Petitioner

None

-versus-

Managing Director, Odisha State …. Opp. Parties Financial Corporation, OMP Square, Cuttack and another

¶8

Mr. Debasis Tripathy, Additional Government Advocate

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

¶10

& JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA

ORDER

Order No.

17.03.2025

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶16

The Petitioner, who has filed this writ petition, is not

¶17

present in person at the time of call.

¶18

This writ petition has been filed with the following

¶19

prayer:

¶20

“In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

¶21

1. Issue a writ of Mandamus to the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 with a direction for quashing the impugned action and reinstating the land of Petitioner, calling upon the Opposite Parties show cause as to why:

¶22

i) the registration and hence mutation shall not be quashed, if the parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the rule may be made absolute;

¶23

2. Any other relief order towards harassment mentally and economically & expedite an early hearing to a senior Citizen, this Court may deem fit and proper under facts and circumstances of this case;

¶24

And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.”

¶25

Page 1 of 2

¶26

On the last occasion, i.e. on 19^th February, 2025, the Petitioner was not present in person at the time of call. Today also the Petitioner is absent at the time of call. Hence, this Court feels that the Petitioner is not interested to prosecute the case.

¶27